[Court Testimony – English Translation]
“The origin of this entire dispute was HYBE’s audit conducted in April 2024. At the time, HYBE claimed during the audit of Min Hee-jin that she was attempting to seize management control. Throughout that process, they repeatedly brought up the issue of ‘taking away NewJeans,’ commonly referred to as tampering. However, at that time, the reasons stated for the audit or for her dismissal did not include the tampering issue at all. In other words, the ‘taking away NewJeans’ argument, which took up a significant portion of today’s hearing, was never the original reason for the audit or for her dismissal.”
“All the issues raised as the cause of the audit and written in the audit report were later found to be untrue in the investigation, leading to a decision of non-indictment on July 14. Therefore, the audit that ADOR conducted and released six days after Min Hee-jin protested was one with a predetermined conclusion and clear intent. This dispute arose from HYBE fabricating a false narrative of an ‘attempt to seize management control.’”
“This is evidenced as Exhibit 224 in the non-indictment decision. The key statement is this: on the third line, it says ‘contrary to what was written in the audit report.’ In other words, the audit was carried out with the conclusion already set. Although the audit report stated that she ‘attempted to seize management control,’ the investigative authorities concluded otherwise, saying, ‘Contrary to the audit report, there was no such attempt at management takeover.’”
“If you look at section 5 in parentheses, the investigative authorities stated that these actions stemmed from resistance to various illegal practices in entertainment companies. Therefore, they questioned whether actions such as filing complaints over copy issues could even be considered a betrayal of ADOR’s parent company. They found it unclear whether there was any intent to benefit a third party or to harm ADOR, and it was difficult to conclude that Min Hee-jin recognized her actions as violating her duties as ADOR’s executive. Most importantly, they determined that her actions were not a breach of duty but rather acts in line with her responsibility as ADOR’s CEO—to protect the members. In other words, she was merely fulfilling her duty to safeguard the members as the company’s representative director.”
“The non-indictment decision stated that her actions seemed aimed at protecting ADOR’s interests and performance, not at harming the company. The investigative authorities found that the KakaoTalk messages you showed earlier were recorded in the audit report with a distorted intent, making them appear as an attempt to seize management control. Upon closer inspection, they concluded that there was no intent of management takeover. This means the KakaoTalk messages shown for 10 minutes earlier were not what they were portrayed to be.”
“Furthermore, Min Hee-jin’s whistleblowing stemmed from unethical practices in the entertainment industry, such as the ‘pushing out’ behavior and subsidiary copy issues. The authorities determined this could not be considered a betrayal of HYBE or ADOR, nor could it be seen as an action that would increase the possibility of NewJeans terminating their exclusive contract.”
“When the news of the internal audit broke, there were 1,700 articles published. This was just five days before NewJeans’ comeback. For idols, the period before a comeback is extremely sensitive, when even falling leaves are approached cautiously. However, with these articles coming out five days before their comeback, the entire comeback was overshadowed, and sensational headlines like ‘betrayal idols’ and ‘backstab idols’ flooded the media.”
“In other words, the biggest victim of this audit was ultimately NewJeans.”
“HYBE essentially forced Min Hee-jin out with no alternative exit except leaving, and then claimed she left on her own accord. After her departure, there was no countermeasure. Even Lee Do-kyung said, ‘Ah, this is burdensome. We can’t do anything right now. We have no plan.’ They just kicked her out and had no plan for NewJeans. As a result, the members were left without proper management or protection.”
“In the clarification statement, they were asked: Before dismissing Min Hee-jin, did you consult or explain this to the members, who would be most affected? Answer: No. Did you prepare any plan to ensure the members could continue normal activities after her dismissal? Answer: No. The plaintiff answered that. Then they were asked: Before dismissing CEO Min Hee-jin, did you discuss offering her a delegation-of-duties contract as claimed? Answer: No. In other words, even by ADOR’s own admission, they had no plan for how to manage the members after removing Min Hee-jin.”
“On page 94, we explained the absurd situation where the executives didn’t even know what songs the members performed on stage. At the very least, a management team claiming to protect and care for NewJeans should at least know what songs they are performing and who those songs belong to. Can you entrust management to people like this?”
“Of course, there was a court decision on the injunction, but injunctions are temporary measures made quickly without a thorough investigation of evidence. On the other hand, the non-indictment decision was made after a lengthy process of forced investigation, evidence collection, and reviewing both the accuser and the accused’s arguments. Therefore, the claim that the injunction decision somehow overrides the non-indictment decision is unreasonable.”
“Also, regarding the police findings that the audit process was ‘procedurally lawful,’ that only means the audit followed the formal procedures and regulations. It does not mean the reasons for the audit were justified. The fact that the procedure was lawful and the fact that the audit’s reasons and conclusions were proven wrong by the investigation are not contradictory.”
“We are worried that the controversy over Hanni’s greeting might sound like a petty issue of senior-junior hierarchy among idols. But that’s not it. What we are saying is that within HYBE affiliates, there was organized ostracism and disregard toward the defendants. The more serious issue is not the act of not greeting itself, but that in the process of explaining and clarifying the facts, the video that could prove Hanni’s words was deleted, making her out to be a liar. Our issue is with the series of events in which evidence was destroyed and the narrative distorted, not simply with the act of not greeting. Therefore, ADOR is missing the point on that matter.”
ที่มา :
https://x.com/NewJeansSTRM/status/1948647144971534728
𝐄𝐗𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐕𝐄 : แปลไทย/อังกฤษ คำให้การในศาลจากฝั่ง NewJeans
[Court Testimony – English Translation]
“The origin of this entire dispute was HYBE’s audit conducted in April 2024. At the time, HYBE claimed during the audit of Min Hee-jin that she was attempting to seize management control. Throughout that process, they repeatedly brought up the issue of ‘taking away NewJeans,’ commonly referred to as tampering. However, at that time, the reasons stated for the audit or for her dismissal did not include the tampering issue at all. In other words, the ‘taking away NewJeans’ argument, which took up a significant portion of today’s hearing, was never the original reason for the audit or for her dismissal.”
“All the issues raised as the cause of the audit and written in the audit report were later found to be untrue in the investigation, leading to a decision of non-indictment on July 14. Therefore, the audit that ADOR conducted and released six days after Min Hee-jin protested was one with a predetermined conclusion and clear intent. This dispute arose from HYBE fabricating a false narrative of an ‘attempt to seize management control.’”
“This is evidenced as Exhibit 224 in the non-indictment decision. The key statement is this: on the third line, it says ‘contrary to what was written in the audit report.’ In other words, the audit was carried out with the conclusion already set. Although the audit report stated that she ‘attempted to seize management control,’ the investigative authorities concluded otherwise, saying, ‘Contrary to the audit report, there was no such attempt at management takeover.’”
“If you look at section 5 in parentheses, the investigative authorities stated that these actions stemmed from resistance to various illegal practices in entertainment companies. Therefore, they questioned whether actions such as filing complaints over copy issues could even be considered a betrayal of ADOR’s parent company. They found it unclear whether there was any intent to benefit a third party or to harm ADOR, and it was difficult to conclude that Min Hee-jin recognized her actions as violating her duties as ADOR’s executive. Most importantly, they determined that her actions were not a breach of duty but rather acts in line with her responsibility as ADOR’s CEO—to protect the members. In other words, she was merely fulfilling her duty to safeguard the members as the company’s representative director.”
“The non-indictment decision stated that her actions seemed aimed at protecting ADOR’s interests and performance, not at harming the company. The investigative authorities found that the KakaoTalk messages you showed earlier were recorded in the audit report with a distorted intent, making them appear as an attempt to seize management control. Upon closer inspection, they concluded that there was no intent of management takeover. This means the KakaoTalk messages shown for 10 minutes earlier were not what they were portrayed to be.”
“Furthermore, Min Hee-jin’s whistleblowing stemmed from unethical practices in the entertainment industry, such as the ‘pushing out’ behavior and subsidiary copy issues. The authorities determined this could not be considered a betrayal of HYBE or ADOR, nor could it be seen as an action that would increase the possibility of NewJeans terminating their exclusive contract.”
“When the news of the internal audit broke, there were 1,700 articles published. This was just five days before NewJeans’ comeback. For idols, the period before a comeback is extremely sensitive, when even falling leaves are approached cautiously. However, with these articles coming out five days before their comeback, the entire comeback was overshadowed, and sensational headlines like ‘betrayal idols’ and ‘backstab idols’ flooded the media.”
“In other words, the biggest victim of this audit was ultimately NewJeans.”
“HYBE essentially forced Min Hee-jin out with no alternative exit except leaving, and then claimed she left on her own accord. After her departure, there was no countermeasure. Even Lee Do-kyung said, ‘Ah, this is burdensome. We can’t do anything right now. We have no plan.’ They just kicked her out and had no plan for NewJeans. As a result, the members were left without proper management or protection.”
“In the clarification statement, they were asked: Before dismissing Min Hee-jin, did you consult or explain this to the members, who would be most affected? Answer: No. Did you prepare any plan to ensure the members could continue normal activities after her dismissal? Answer: No. The plaintiff answered that. Then they were asked: Before dismissing CEO Min Hee-jin, did you discuss offering her a delegation-of-duties contract as claimed? Answer: No. In other words, even by ADOR’s own admission, they had no plan for how to manage the members after removing Min Hee-jin.”
“On page 94, we explained the absurd situation where the executives didn’t even know what songs the members performed on stage. At the very least, a management team claiming to protect and care for NewJeans should at least know what songs they are performing and who those songs belong to. Can you entrust management to people like this?”
“Of course, there was a court decision on the injunction, but injunctions are temporary measures made quickly without a thorough investigation of evidence. On the other hand, the non-indictment decision was made after a lengthy process of forced investigation, evidence collection, and reviewing both the accuser and the accused’s arguments. Therefore, the claim that the injunction decision somehow overrides the non-indictment decision is unreasonable.”
“Also, regarding the police findings that the audit process was ‘procedurally lawful,’ that only means the audit followed the formal procedures and regulations. It does not mean the reasons for the audit were justified. The fact that the procedure was lawful and the fact that the audit’s reasons and conclusions were proven wrong by the investigation are not contradictory.”
“We are worried that the controversy over Hanni’s greeting might sound like a petty issue of senior-junior hierarchy among idols. But that’s not it. What we are saying is that within HYBE affiliates, there was organized ostracism and disregard toward the defendants. The more serious issue is not the act of not greeting itself, but that in the process of explaining and clarifying the facts, the video that could prove Hanni’s words was deleted, making her out to be a liar. Our issue is with the series of events in which evidence was destroyed and the narrative distorted, not simply with the act of not greeting. Therefore, ADOR is missing the point on that matter.”
ที่มา : https://x.com/NewJeansSTRM/status/1948647144971534728